Journal 08 Vol 3 No 3.pmd - Semantic Scholar

Malaysian Family Physician 2008; Volume 3, Number 3 ISSN: 1985-207X (print), 1985-2274 (electronic) ©Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia Online version: http://www.ejournal.afpm.org.my/

Review Article CLASSIFYING ASTHMA SEVERITY AND TREATMENT DETERMINANTS: NATIONAL GUIDELINES REVISITED R Khajotia MBBS (Bom), MD (Bom), MD (Vienna), FAMA (Vienna), FAMS (Vienna). International Medical University, Seremban, Malaysia Address for correspondence: Dr. Rumi Khajotia, Associate Professor in Internal Medicine and Pulmonology, International Medical University Clinical School, Seremban, Malaysia. Tel: 606-7677798 ext 190. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Bronchial asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways manifested physiologically by a widespread narrowing of the air passages. Being an inflammatory disease of the airways, the most effective treatment available for the management of bronchial asthma are anti-inflammatory agents such as corticosteroids. However, it is known that at higher dosage levels, even inhaled corticosteroids have harmful systemic side-effects. Hence, justification of use of high-dose of inhaled corticosteroids can only be made if patients with severe asthma can be accurately identified. For this precise reason, methods have been devised to categorize asthma severity through various National Asthma Management Guidelines. The present guidelines predominantly stress on symptoms and lung functions as the yardstick for determining the severity of asthma attacks and parameters determining airway inflammation have not yet been incorporated into them. However, these guidelines have proved to be fairly accurate in determining asthma severity and in guiding the treatment in these patients and all healthcare personnel are strongly advised to follow them. It is hoped that future guidelines may incorporate measures of inflammation as well, in order to further improve the diagnostic and treatment modalities in these patients. Keywords: Asthma severity, guidelines, airway inflammation Khajotia R. Classifying asthma severity and treatment determinants: national guidelines revisited. Malaysian Family Physician. 2008;3(3):131-136

INTRODUCTION Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways associated with intermittent episodes of bronchospasm.1 Bronchodilators effectively relieve the bronchospasm and consequent symptoms but do not treat the underlying airway inflammation which is the mainstay in an underlying asthmatic attack. At present, corticosteroids are the most effective antiinflammatory agents available for the treatment of bronchial asthma. When given at low doses in the inhaled form, corticosteroids act as topical anti-inflammatory agents in the bronchial passages with minor risk of any significant systemic exposure.2 Inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to have effectively reduced airway inflammation,3 control asthma symptoms, decrease the frequency and severity of acute exacerbations, improve lung functions, reduce frequency of hospitalization4 and consequently reduce both morbidity and mortality rates.5 However, as higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids are used, the risks of systemic side effects have been known to increase.6 It has been observed that beneficial effects from higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids are significantly less than previously thought. One study indicated that maximal symptomatic and lung function improvements were found at low- to medium

131

doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate.7 Similar results were obtained while comparing increasing doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate and beclomethasone dipropionate.8 Also, doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids during clinical deterioration does little to prevent an acute exacerbation.9 It has been observed that only those patients who are chronic asthmatics, resistant to most conventional therapies including oral and inhaled beta-agonists and who require chronically high doses of oral corticosteroids stand to benefit from very high doses of inhaled corticosteroids.10,11 Also, systemic risks of long-term inhaled corticosteroids are substantially less than previously thought. Though inhaled corticosteroids are known to suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, it is rarely ever the cause of clinically perceived adrenal insufficiency.12 Inhaled corticosteroids are also known to transiently decrease the growth velocity in prepubertal children. But this does not result in the diminution of the actual height attained.13 Skin bruising is known to occur with long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids.14 This occurs more commonly in the elderly and is primarily a cosmetic problem. However, it needs to be remembered that long-term use of high doses of inhaled corticosteroids are associated with side effects such as osteopenia, myopathy, cataracts, growth retardation and Cushing’s syndrome.15,16


Hence it can be surmised that the benefit-to-risk profile of inhaled corticosteroids is clearly favourable at low-to-medium doses wherein considerable benefit is obtained with little risk of adverse systemic side effects. However, use of high doses of inhaled corticosteroids entails the risk of systemic side effects. Hence, the use of higher doses should be restricted to those carefully chosen clinical conditions in which the anticipated benefits can be justified. This can only be determined if patients with more severe asthma can be reliably identified. Therefore, it is vitally important to categorize the severity of asthma attacks so that appropriate treatment modalities can be adopted. CLASSIFYING ASTHMA SEVERITY Classifying the severity of asthmatic attacks based on clinical features and convenient parameters such as peak flow rates, is believed to be an invaluable method in the management of bronchial asthma. Several methods for categorizing asthma severity have been devised in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada and are routinely being used to follow and manage patients with bronchial asthma. NAEPP Classification The most widely accepted classification of asthma severity was that recommended by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Expert Panel Report 2. These guidelines placed major emphasis on diagnosis ( including classification of asthma) and management, which included a stepped approach to asthma treatment. The NAEPP classification relies on an assessment of asthma symptoms and lung function at the time the patient is being evaluated and prior to commencement of treatment. Three variables are considered in classifying asthma severity, namely, daytime symptoms, nighttime symptoms, and lung function. Abnormalities within each of these three variables are graded into four separate categories of severity. Overall asthma severity is categorized according to the worst individual variable. For example, if a patient has severe persistent daytime symptoms (placing him in the severe persistent category for this variable) but has nighttime symptoms less than twice per week and normal lung function (both in mild, intermittent category), the overall asthma categorization would be severe, persistent.

Recently, EPR 3 guidelines have been released which are essentially based on the 1997 EPR 2 guidelines as the framework. These guidelines are now organised around four essential components of asthma care, namely: assessment and monitoring, patient education, control of factors contributing to asthma severity and pharmacologic treatment.17 Table 1. NAEPP classification of asthma severity Symptoms: Cough, Shortness of Breath, Wheezing or Chest Tightness. Patients should be assigned to the most severe step in which ANY feature occurs: Symptoms Days with Severity Symptoms

Nights with PEFR Symptoms FEV1

Step 4 Severe Persistent

Continual

Frequent

≤ 60 %

Step 3 Moderate Persistent

Daily

> 1 / week

> 60% - < 30 % < 80 %

Step 2 Mild Persistent

>2/ week, > 2 / month but< 1 / day

Step 1 Mild ≤ 2 / week Intermittent

≤ 2 / month

PEF Variability > 30 %

≥ 80 %

20-30 %

≥ 80 %

< 20 %

Australian National Asthma Campaign Classification This classification is developed based on the consensus of experts. By this method, asthma severity is assessed while the patient is clinically stable, at the same time taking into consideration a past history of either hospitalization or nearfatal asthma attacks.18 Like the method established in the Expert Panel Report 2, the worst individual categorization will determine overall asthma severity. An additional consideration to asthma severity categorization is the identification of the “high risk” patient. There is an overlap between variables used to categorize asthma severity and characteristics of the “high risk” patient. However, other factors, such as poor compliance with treatment, denial of asthma as a personal medical problem, history of asthma initiated by aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and immediate hypersensitivity to foods are termed high-risk characteristics. Identifying a high-risk patient will not necessarily lead to changes in therapy, but does indicate the need for closer followup.

132


Table 2. Classification of asthma severity: method of Australian National Asthma Campaign18 Severity

Wheeze, tightness, cough, dyspnoea

Nighttime Symptoms

Symptoms on waking

Admission Previous or emergency lifevisits threatening attack

Short acting β -agonist use

FEV1

PEF

Severe

Every day

> 1 / week

> 1 / week

Usually

May have a history

>3 to 4 / day

1 time a >2 times week but a month < 1 time a day Attacks may affect activity

≥ 80%

20 - 30%

Daily Attacks affect activity

> 1 time a week

60% 80%

> 30%

Continuous Limited physical activity

Frequent

≤ 60%

> 30%

The presence of one of the features of severity is sufficient to place a patient in that category. Patients at any level of severity, even intermittent asthma, can have severe attacks. The Global Initiative for Asthma released new guidelines for asthma management in the year 2000 which emphasized looking at asthma not only in terms of severity, but also in terms of response to treatment, which is equivalent to control. In addition, the new GINA guidelines used this approach with children under the age of 5, which was a major difference from the NAEPP guidelines. GINA recommended using the NAEPP classification of asthma only for research purposes. Instead they suggested these three asthma classifications which were more a variation in mindset than anything else: o Controlled: At this level, there are no daytime or nighttime symptoms, no activity restrictions and infrequent need for quick relief medicines (no more than twice a week). Peak flow is normal and there are no asthma attacks. o Partly controlled: At this level, daytime symptoms are occurring more than twice a week, sometimes at night and occasionally they limit activity. Quick relief medicines are needed more than twice a week. Peak flow rate is less than 80 percent of the personal best and asthma attacks occur at least once a year. o Uncontrolled: Asthma is classified as uncontrolled if there are 3 or more of the features of partially controlled asthma at least 3 times a week and asthma attacks are occurring weekly. Asthma Severity: (Updated guidelines 2008) GINA now reasons that classification of asthma by severity is useful when decisions are being made about management at the initial assessment of a patient. GINA therefore maintains that it is important to recognize that asthma severity involves both the severity of the underlying disease and its responsiveness to treatment. Thus, asthma can present with severe symptoms and airflow obstruction and be classified as Severe Persistent on initial presentation, but respond fully to treatment and then be classified as Moderate Persistent asthma. In addition, severity is not an unvarying feature of an individual patient’s asthma, but may change over months or years.


Because of these considerations, the classification of asthma severity provided in table 3 above, which is based on expert opinion rather than evidence is not recommended as the basis for ongoing treatment decisions, but retains its value as a cross-sectional means of characterizing a group of patients with asthma who are not on inhaled glucocorticoid treatment, as in selecting patients for inclusion in an asthma study. Its main limitation is its poor value in predicting what treatment will be required and what a patients response to that treatment might be. Hence, a periodic assessment of asthma control has now been deemed more relevant and useful.20

even cure. However, in asthma, where neither of these are realistic options at present, it refers to control of the manifestations of disease. Ideally this should apply not only to clinical manifestations, but to laboratory markers of inflammation and pathophysiological features of the disease as well. There is evidence that reducing inflammation with controller therapy achieves clinical control, but because of the cost and / or general unavailability of tests such as endobronchial biopsy and measurement of sputum eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide, it is recommended that treatment be aimed at controlling the clinical features of disease, including lung function abnormalities. Table 4 provides the characteristics of controlled, partly controlled and uncontrolled asthma.

Asthma control: According to GINA, asthma control may be defined in various ways. The term control may indicate disease prevention, or Table : 4 Levels of asthma control Characteristic

Controlled (All of the following)

Partly Controlled (Any measure present in any week)

Uncontrolled

Daytime symptoms

None (twice or less/week)

More than twice/week

Three or more features of partly controlled asthma present in any week

Limitations of activities

None

Any

Nocturnal symptoms/awakening

None

Any

Need for reliever/rescue treatment

None (twice or less/week)

More than twice/week

Lung function (PEF or FEV1)

Normal

< 80% predicted or personal best (if known)

Exacerbations

None

One or more/year

Complete control of asthma is commonly achieved with treatment, the aim of which should be to achieve and maintain control for prolonged periods (21), with due regard to the safety of treatment, potential for adverse effects and the cost of treatment required to achieve this goal. Validated measures for assessing clinical control of asthma are the Asthma Control Test (ACT) (http:// www.asthmacontrol.com), the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT), the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) (http:// www.qoltech.co.uk/Asthma1.htm), the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (ATAQ) (http:// www.ataqinstrument.com) and the Asthma Control Scoring System. DISCUSSION The above guidelines rely on asthma symptoms and lung function values for determining asthma severity. However there are significant issues involved in developing asthma severity categorization methods that incorporate symptoms and

One in any week

objective measures of lung function on the same scale. For instance, continual symptoms have the same significance as a FEV1 below 60% predicted. This apparently makes sense to the clinician but is difficult to support scientifically since numerous studies have shown that there is poor correlation between reporting of asthma symptoms and objective measures of lung function.22,23 Hence, patients cannot reliably predict changes in their lung function based on the symptoms they experience,24 and physicians cannot accurately predict lung functions from examination of patients with asthma. Another fundamental concern regarding the various guidelines is that they are based more on the concept of asthma control rather than asthma severity.25 Symptoms and lung function indicate how well the manifestations of the disease are controlled, but do not reflect the severity of the underlying inflammation. As asthma is recognized to be an inflammatory airway disease, severity categorization should also be based

134


on an assessment of airway inflammation. Nowadays, direct methods are available to assess airway inflammation. Induced sputum allows measurement of airway inflammatory cells and changes in sputum eosinophil counts may reflect deterioration in asthma control.26 Bronchoscopy is increasingly used for bronchoalveolar lavage to measure airway inflammatory cell counts and airway biopsy is used to directly evaluate airway remodeling and inflammation.27 Exhaled levels of nitric oxide28 and tests of bronchial hyperresponsiveness29 may indirectly reflect airway inflammation.

counts into future guidelines would improve the assessment of the underlying airway inflammation and help to appropriately adjust anti-inflammatory therapy.

Two studies have directly evaluated the added value of incorporating measures of airway inflammation into an approach for asthma management. One study30 randomized asthma patients to a treatment strategy based on either asthma severity categorized only clinically or asthma severity categorization along with methacholine inhalation challenge studies as a measure of bronchial hyperreactivity. Bronchial hyperreactivity was used in this study as an index of underlying airway inflammation.

3.

The patients treated according to measures of bronchial hyperreactivity received higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids, but had significantly fewer episodes of asthma exacerbation and significantly more effective control of airway inflammation as determined by bronchial biopsies.

6.

The vital importance of categorizing asthma severity is very evident. Higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids can only be justified if patients with more severe asthma can be identified. National guidelines on asthma management have attempted to address this issue by proposing asthma severity categorization methods. However, despite serious efforts to disseminate these guidelines, database evaluations have shown that current asthma care around the world fails to adhere to recommendations of these guidelines.31 This is a disturbing observation because underassessment of asthma severity results in ineffective treatment and an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients.32 Various studies have shown that, in spite of methodologic flaws, if patients are managed according to the recommended guidelines, it would significantly improve patient care.33 However, many investigators and clinicians have expressed concern that the current asthma management guidelines are symptom oriented and do not include measures of airway inflammation as a guide to the management of asthma. As studies of airway inflammatory responses progress, there is likely to be a place for the measure of airway inflammation in a future guideline. Without the endpoints necessary to assess airway inflammation, current recommendations for asthma severity categorization may lead to systematic under dosing of appropriate anti-inflammatory therapy with consequent exacerbation of the asthma attacks. Incorporating measures such as methacholine challenge testing and sputum eosinophil

135

REFERENCES 1. 2.

4. 5.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Busse WW, Lemanske RF Jr. Asthma. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(5):350-62 Lawrence M, Wolfe J, Webb DR, et al. Efficacy of inhaled fluticasone propionate in asthma results from topical and not systemic activity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156(3 Pt 1):744-51 Laitinen LA, Laitinen A, Haahtela T. A comparative study of the effects of an inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide, and a beta2agonist, terbutaline, on airway inflammation in newly diagnosed asthma: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90(1):32-42 Donahue JG, Weiss ST, Livingston JM, et al. Inhaled steroids and the risk of hospitalization for asthma. JAMA. 1997; 277(11): 887-91 Lanes SF, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Huerta C. Respiratory medications and risk of asthma death. Thorax. 2002;57(8):6836 Lipworth BJ. Systemic adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroid therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(9):941-55 Holt S, Suder A, Weatherall M, et al. Dose-response relation of inhaled fluticasone propionate in adolescents and adults with asthma: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323(7307):253-6 Szefler SJ, Martin RJ, King TS, et al. Asthma Clinical Research Network of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Significant variability in response to inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109(3):410-8 Harrison TW, Oborne J, Newton S, Tattersfield AE. Doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroid to prevent asthma exacerbations: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9405):271-5 Noonan M, Chervinsky P, Busse WW, et al. Fluticasone propionate reduces oral prednisolone use while it improves asthma control and quality of life. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 1995;152(5 Pt 1):1467-73 Fish JE, Karpel JP, Craig TJ, et al. Inhaled mometasone furoate reduces oral prednisone requirements while improving respiratory function and health-related quality of life in patients with severe persistent asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106(5):852-60 Todd GR, Acerini CL, Ross-Russell R, et al. Survey of adrenal crisis associated with inhaled corticosteroids in the United Kingdom. Arch Dis Child. 2002;87(6):457-61 Long-term effects of budesonide or nedocromil in children with asthma. The Childhood Asthma Management Program Research Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(15):1054-63 Mak VH, Melchor R, Spiro SG. Easy bruising as a side-effect of inhaled corticosteroids. Eur Respir J. 1992;5(9):1068-74 Garbe E, Suissa S, LeLorier J. Association of inhaled corticosteroid use with cataract extraction in elderly patients. JAMA. 1998;280(6):539-43 Covar RA, Leung DY, McCormick D, et al. Risk factors associated with glucocorticoid-induced adverse effects in children with severe asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106(4):651-9


17. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2007. 18. Asthma Management Handbook 2006, National Asthma Campaign. National Asthma Council Australia Ltd, 2006. 19. Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. Updated 2008. 20. Chen H, Gould MK, Blanc PD, et al, for the TENOR Study Group. Asthma control, severity and quality of life: quantifying the effect of uncontrolled disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(2):396-402 21. Bateman ED, Boushey HA, Bousquet J, et al. Can guidelinedefined asthma control be achieved? The Gaining Optimal Asthma Control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(8):836-44 22. Teeter JG, Bleecker ER. Relationship between airway obstruction and respiratory symptoms in adult asthmatics. Chest. 1998;113(2): 272-7 23. Shingo S, Zhang J, Reiss TF. Correlation of airway obstruction and patient-reported endpoints in clinical studies. Eur Respr J. 2001;17(2):220-4 24. Kendrick AH, Higgs CM, Whitfield MJ, Laszlo G. Accuracy of perception of severity of asthma: patients treated in general practice. BMJ. 1993;307(6901):422-4 25. Cockcroft DW, Swystun VA. Asthma control versus asthma severity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;98(6Pt 1):1016-8

26. Jatakanon A, Lim S, Barnes PJ. Changes in sputum eosinophils predict loss of asthma control. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):64-72 27. Ward C, Pais M, Bish R, et al. Airway inflammation, basement membrane thickening and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in asthma. Thorax. 2002;57(4):309-16 28. Turktas H, Oguzulgen K, Kokturk N, et al. Correlation of exhaled nitric oxide levels and airway inflammation markers in stable asthmatic patients. J Asthma. 2003;40(4):425-30 29. Van Den Berge M, Meijer RJ, Kerstjens HAM, et al. PC (20) adenosine 5’-monophosphate is more closely associated with airway inflammation in asthma than PC (20) methacholine. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2001;163(7):1546-50 30. Sont JK, Willems LN, Bel EH, et al. Clinical control and histopathologic outcome of asthma when using airway hyperresponsiveness as an additional guide to long-term treatment. The AMPUL Study Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(4 Pt 1):1043-51 31. Vermeire PA, Rabe KF, Soriano JB, Maier WC. Asthma control and differences in management practices across seven European countries. Respir Med. 2002;96(3):142-9 32. Wolfenden LL, Diette GB, Krishnan JA, et al. Lower physician estimate of underlying asthma severity leads to undertreatment. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(2):231-6 33. Bateman ED, Bousquet J, Braunstein GL. Is overall asthma control being achieved? A hypothesis-generating study. Eur Respir J. 2001;17(4):589-95

Smokers who were told their “lung age” are more likely to quit smoking Parkes G, Greenhalgh T, Griffin M, Dent R. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008; 336(7644):598600. In this randomised controlled trial, 561 current smokers (age >35) were offered spirometry. Participants in intervention group received their results in terms of “lung age” (the age of the average healthy individual who would perform similar to them on spirometry). Those in the control group received a raw figure for forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). Both groups were advised to quit and offered referral to local NHS smoking cessation services. The quite rate at 1 year (assessed by salivary cotinine testing) were 13.6% and 6.4% (difference 7.2%, P=0.005, 95% confidence interval 2.2% to 12.1%; number needed to treat 14).

136